back to article Premier League wants to PURGE ALL FOOTIE GIFs from social media

The English Premier League is working to design new software which will stop piratical football fans uploading footage of goals to Vine or social media. It has apologised for being a "killjoy" after warning fans that spaffing images of goals all over the internet is a breach of copyright. Now it is developing software to …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    GIF's?

    Who is posting GIF's in this day and age? I imagine they are all of Ronnie Rosenthal missing that goal at Anfield.

    1. The Mole

      Re: GIF's?

      IANAL but is it actually a breach of copyright? There are narrow exemptions in UK law for fair dealing particularly for news reporting. If they were posting the entire match then that would clearly be a breach, but given they are only posting 6 second chunks that is about 0.1% of the copyrighted product.

      1. Lionel Baden

        Re: GIF's?

        @Mr Hill. goto 9gag :) plenty of gifs there !!

        @ Mole,

        not sure why your replying to Mr Hill's comment as you talked about something completely unrelated, if were cynical about the whole thing my presumption would be you want ed to have your comment read at the top of the page instead of being 4 comments down ....

        and in reply to your comment, all they would need to do is ban filming of the event therefore resolving any legal issues.

        1. Fink-Nottle

          Re: GIF's?

          not sure why your replying to Mr Hill's comment as you talked about something completely unrelated , if were cynical about the whole thing my presumption would be you want ed to have your comment read at the top of the page instead of being 4 comments down ....

          Pot, meet Kettle.

          1. Lionel Baden

            Re: GIF's?

            @Fink

            I was replying to both, but mainly The Mole's. So not really pot & Kettle.

            I wasn't replying just to try and grab the second spot on the page, and completely ignoring the OP.

            my reply actually had something to do with the previous post.

            1. Fink-Nottle

              Re: GIF's?

              @Lionel

              Like Luis Suarez, your excuses just don't ring true ...

              > my reply actually had something to do with the previous post

              It looks to me like you prefaced your off-topic reply with a throw away comment in an attempt to cover yourself in case of criticism. I would suggest that pointing out an internet site which contains funny GIFs hardly contributes to the discussion.

              > I wasn't replying just to try and grab the second spot on the page

              Funny, I get exactly the opposite impression.

              If you felt strongly about perceived attention seeking in others, then the proper thing to do would be to start a newly titled comment. If your motive was draw attention to yourself by criticising a fellow Commentard, then you've succeeded. Unfortunately, calling another's motivation into question attracts the wrong kind of attention.

              You've been here long enough to know better. The Register's message boards are thankfully free of the pettiness you exhibited and I, for one, would like them to remain that way.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: GIF's?

                Fink, you are a dick.

                Lionel Baden was responding to the attention seeking Mole's completely spurious response to a question about GIF's.

                When you respond to the content of somebodies comment you hit the reply button and respond. You do not start a completely new thread.

                When your comment has absolutely nothing to do with a comment you start a new thread, you do not hit reply so that you comment appears near the top of the page.

                1. Fink-Nottle

                  Re: GIF's?

                  > Fink, you are a dick.

                  > Lionel Baden was responding to the attention seeking Mole's completely spurious response to a question about GIF's.

                  If doubting that El Reg benefits by self-appointed forum police making pronouncements on the motives behind other's posts makes me a dick, then so be it.

                2. This post has been deleted by its author

              2. Robert Baker
                Stop

                Re: GIF's?

                "The Register's message boards are thankfully free of [the] pettiness [you exhibited]..."

                How ironic that this remark got 8 downvotes.

              3. Lionel Baden

                Re: GIF's?

                @Fink-Nottle.

                >It looks to me like you prefaced your off-topic reply with a throw away comment in an attempt to cover yourself in case of criticism. I would suggest that pointing out an internet site which contains funny GIFs hardly contributes to the discussion.

                If you check the reply (click on the arrow to the left of my comment) you will see i was actually replying to you. And a website that contains thousands of gif images in response to "who uses gifs anyway" is actually pretty damn spot on the mark !

      2. The First Dave Silver badge

        Re: GIF's?

        How is it breach of copyright in any way? I imagine that there is a condition in the small print on the back of the ticket that denies all photography, but that is mere breach of contract.

        I don't suppose that a football stadium counts as a "public place" but if it did then the photographer would be in the clear.

        1. S4qFBxkFFg

          Re: GIF's?

          It doesn't say, but I understood it to be referring to taking phone videos of the TV while it's showing a goal.

          1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

            Re: GIF's?

            The interview on Radio 4 this morning was talking about posting video clips obtained from television coverage onto YouTube or other social media. With no fair-use provision in UK copyright law, any video obtained from transmitted material that is redistributed is a breach of copyright, unless allowed by a specific waiver of copyright.

            What is not copyright breach is using a phone in the ground to record part of the match, and then posting that. That may breach the terms and conditions of the ticket, but would not be a copyright offence (unless the owners of the advertising objected to that appearing - but they'd be stupid to complain about wider distribution of their adverts!)

            1. James Micallef Silver badge

              No fair use?

              "With no fair-use provision in UK copyright law"

              Wow, is that right? If so, that completely sucks. To be fair, a highlights reel of a single match is anyway difficult to shoehorn in as fair use, but some goals / actions + added comment on player positioning etc surely could count as educational use?

              And what about Premier League footage that is broadcast, captured and uploaded in a country where fair use exemptions DO exist? Of course in that case, still accessible in UK. Can of worms!

              1. Hollerith 1

                Re: No fair use? Nope.

                There is the right to (very restricted) quotation for journalistic or scholastic or critical purposes, but no general 'fair use', which is just as well, as 'fair use' is seen as 'I am pure of heart, so I will help myself.'

                When I was in publishing, I used to have to count the lines of poetry in a poem being quoted by a contributor to meet the boundary of 'quotation used for...' rules.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: GIF's?

              "What is not copyright breach is using a phone in the ground to record part of the match, and then posting that. That may breach the terms and conditions of the ticket, but would not be a copyright offence (unless the owners of the advertising objected to that appearing - but they'd be stupid to complain about wider distribution of their adverts!)"

              I may be wrong, but from what I can gather, it CAN be a copyright breach because of two things.

              1. Most stadia I know about are at least partially privately owned. Thus photography and videography rights can be restricted on account of that ownership. Just as one can't normally take a picture of the interior of a domicile without permission.

              2. A video recording or photograph is recognized as a work of art and thus is subject to copyright. Thus the owner of a location can sell the photography rights to events held in their location. Museums employ this restriction also IIRC.

        2. Neil Lewis

          Re: GIF's?

          Yes, a football stadium would count as a public place in this sense, exactly the same as any other venue where an even is staged, because tickets are available to the general public.

          But that's a red herring in any case. The private place/public place issue is a privacy matter, not a copyright matter. Copyright *always* belongs to the person who creates the image (or sequence of images) and not the performer.

          This story would seem to be about people sharing images or clips created by the TV companyand therefore owned by them, which have been broadcast over the internet, not images or clips surreptitiously caught by spectators on their own devices. Either that, or Murdoch's legal team are laughably clueless and sadly I don't believe that to be the case, funny as it would be.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: GIF's?

        IANAL has to be the single worst acronym I've ever come across.

        1. Raumkraut

          Re: GIF's?

          > IANAL has to be the single worst acronym I've ever come across.

          Have you not come across the wonderful derivation "IANALBIPOOTI" before then?

          I generally prefer to go with IANAIPLBIPOOTI though, since that's my arm-chair specialty.

          1. Spleen

            Re: GIF's?

            "IANALBIPOOTI"

            I Am Not A Lawyer But I Play One On TV... Incidentally? Illegally? Incompetently?

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

            2. J 3
              Happy

              Re: GIF's?

              Being too lazy to look it up, I myself imagined this stands for "I am not a lawyer but I post opinions on the Internet", but I now favor the "poking" version someone else provided.

            3. Mark 85 Silver badge

              Re: GIF's?

              I Am Not A Lawyer But I Play One On The Internet --- FTFY

          2. Ken Hagan Gold badge

            Re: IANALBIPOOTI

            IANAL But I Poke One Of Them Intimately?

            So, you aren't one yourself, but you are fairly knowledgable because your other half is?

            Only joking, but I'd be genuinely grateful for an explanation, since I haven't seen this one before.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: GIF's?

          Correct, because in Freudian terms it is the actual lawyers that tend to have the anal personalities, rather than the people who tell you they aren't.

          However, back on topic, none of them would appear to be half so anal as the Football Association. It is a pity that the original amateurs who invented the game couldn't have copyleft it so that nobody could profit from it.

      4. mafoo
        Joke

        Parody Exemption

        Parody exemption is the way to go!

        All footballs replaced with roonie's head!

      5. streaky Silver badge

        Re: GIF's?

        The exemptions aren't all that narrow - there's two issues here really, they probably want money from twitter because that's the Murdoch way, and they're not looking to go to court - they're expecting them to be removed without fuss, no questions asked.

        No lawyers needed.

    2. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

      Re: GIF's?

      Who is posting GIF's in this day and age?

      All of the soccer GIFs I've seen are of international level players falling over like they're made of porcelain and throwing tantrums. It's really quite hilarious to see how undignified an overpaid adult human can be.

      And that's understandably embarrassing for the sport. They could stamp it out... or I guess they could do this.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: GIF's?

      > The Sun and The Times newspapers, which both skulk behind paywalls and want football action to stay as hidden as the rest of their content.

      And the problem is...? :)

  2. ratfox Silver badge

    Good luck

    Whac-a-mole comes to mind…

    1. Someone Else Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: Good luck

      But...but...but...Whac-a-Mole is copyrighted....

    2. James Micallef Silver badge

      Re: Good luck

      I'm pretty sure that automated routines can pick out that a video is of a football game with decent success especially if it's the 'standard' pitch orientation in most feeds. But how do they know it's a Premier League match, not someone filming their local pub league? If it's the official live feed there's team names in the top corner but if it's someone filmig the TV with their phone, or getting the official feed and distorting the top corner before uploading, how to tell?

      1. JDX Gold badge

        Re: Good luck

        Automated routine finds new videos added each day. A person skims through them. It rather depends how many videos are posted per day if this is feasible but I suspect it probably is, if you're spending money on the problem.

      2. Steve 129

        Re: Good luck

        Shoot (the take down order) first, ask (no) questions later.

  3. Pete 2

    Unnatural bedfellows

    > we have to protect our intellectual property.

    It's not often your hear "intellectual" being used in an article about football.

    But, heigh-ho - I suppose if they can find a way to block stuff that *they* have a right to - but not, say, of little Johnny knocking one into the back of the net at the local park - then good luck to 'em

    It's odd though. You'd have hoped there would be more to a football match: 90 minutes and £40 than just a few seconds of a ball moving from a boot (or head, or <ahem> hand) to a net. Makes you wonder whether the entire 39 week soccer season couldn't just be telescoped down into a 5 minute mass-kicking sometime in May. You'd get all the goals and it would save a whole lot of tedious traveling, speculation, punditry and disappointment.

    1. John Bailey

      Re: Unnatural bedfellows

      "But, heigh-ho - I suppose if they can find a way to block stuff that *they* have a right to - but not, say, of little Johnny knocking one into the back of the net at the local park - then good luck to 'em"

      Or do like everybody else in the media.. And send takedown notices to all qualifying images.. Including little Johnny kicking a ball round the back garden.

      Little bit of work to rule might be spamming Youtube and other similar places with blindingly obvious not what ever it is league videos, and seeing how long before Youtube gets sent a nastygram.

      Calling the competing press to make a storm in a teacup about it is of course optional.

  4. Adrian Jones

    Hang on!

    If a monkey takes a picture, then it has the copyright.

    If a football fan takes a picture, then The Sun has the copyright.

    Is that what they're saying? What happens if a monkey takes a picture of a goal?

    1. hammarbtyp Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: Hang on!

      So Hartlepool United supporters are fine then...(No seriously, look it up)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hang on!

      If a money takes a picture in an open location, the picture is public domain because animals cannot claim copyright (since they're not considered a being capable of recognizing the concept).

      Meanwhile, a football match takes place in an at-least-semi-private location. That means it can restrict photography on the grounds. Museums do it, too.

      So if a monkey takes a picture of a goal, then the copyright belongs to the stadium because of the premises provision.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Next....

    Please register your eyes.

    Please register your ears.

    1. Vector

      Re: Next....

      No need. We will be registering them for you.

      If you have questions or concerns about your public submissions bill, please contact...

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

  6. Vince Lewis 1

    copyright is for creative works

    I thought copyright was for creative works. So the guys kicking the ball are over paid actors and the entire event is scripted?

    1. Richard C.

      Re: copyright is for creative works

      IIRC, this did come up some years ago (in relation of satellite rebroadcasts or similar) and it basically came down to "It's the on-screen graphics which are copyrighted" - leaving them open to "if you can rebroadcast it without the graphics or pitchside sponsor logos, then you /may/ be clear"

      1. GreggS

        Re: copyright is for creative works

        Isn't that what ultimately did for the non-UK based satellite services offering Premier League games cheaply to pubs? The broadcasting and receiving of them was OK, but as soon as the Premier League logo appears, it became breach of copyright and therefore illegal to show. I would of thought the same thing applies here, incl. Sky logos and any other advertising, team logo's and presumably any breach of image rights the players may have.

        Sorry state of affairs though and just one more reason to hate Murdoch and the Premier league. best league in the World my arse.

        1. MrT

          Re: on-screen logos...

          ... ah, now the penny drops why most of the TV channels plaster a ghost logo in the top corner...

    2. James Micallef Silver badge

      Re: copyright is for creative works

      "So the guys kicking the ball are over paid actors and the entire event is scripted?"

      They could argue that it's sort of improvisational theatre where the 'actors' have some general guidelines but act autonomously / spontaneously during the 'performance'. So, yes I would say that their official feed is legally copyrightable without having to refer to on-screen graphics.

      Anything a fan shoots on their own camera though, is copyright to whoever films it, it highly pisses me off when for example FIFA were taking down World Cp videos shot by fans. There's also the news/public interest angle. If an event is newsworthy I don't see why a member of the public filming it should be restricted by copyright law.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: copyright is for creative works

      They're miming. And some of them are very good at acting.

  7. 1924MG
    FAIL

    Simpler solution than developing seek-and-destroy software

    The Premier League or rights holder can very simply sign up to Vine for clips and tumblr for gifs and simply post the goals a split-second before the rest of the world. If world+dog can do it, there's no reason Sky and co can't.

    They'll get all the followers and in doing so undermine the 'black market' (grey as it is)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Simpler solution than developing seek-and-destroy software

      You have to pay Murcdoch and his cronies to see the content and there, my friend, is the difference.

      All I can say is if footy fans are outraged at this, stop buying the Sun et al...please....pretty please.

      1. 1924MG

        Re: Simpler solution than developing seek-and-destroy software

        No doubt that's their motive, but shows a real lack of marketing ability if they can't think of a way to take advantage of all the influence those millions of followers would give them

    2. Daniel Johnson

      Re: Simpler solution than developing seek-and-destroy software

      An even simpler solution: play all matches behind closed doors, so no fans can film the precious goals. And don't let the television cameras in, either. Hermetically sealed copyright -- problem solved.

      1. The Commenter formally known as Matt

        Re: Simpler solution than developing seek-and-destroy software

        but you would have to blindfold the payers and officials to make sure

  8. ravenviz
    Trollface

    The meek, etc.

    Right now where's my old Betamax copies of Blake's 7 that I used to watch illegally (but now watch legally)?

  9. MJI Silver badge

    Do not piss off fans

    Or they will piss off leaving you with no money.

    1. Michael Habel Silver badge

      Re: Do not piss off fans

      Or they will piss off leaving you with no money.a

      Like thats really ever gonna happen....

      1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

        Re: Do not piss off fans

        I think it is more like "Do not make copyright law the subject of mainstream pub talk, or else the whole show is over.".

        Let's be honest here, most *normal* folks tolerate copyright law and most probably reckon it serves a useful purpose in allowing artists to make a crust. However, if it stops them enjoying their footy with their mates then IT SUCKS AND MUST GO IMMEDIATELY REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES.

        This may be where the Premier League's gravy train hits the buffers, a bit like the music industry.

        1. Oninoshiko

          Re: Do not piss off (pissed) fans

          I agree if it starts being a hassle, especially in pubs, people will start to make a big deal over it.

          The rights owners already lost quite a bit of the high-ground when they starting sending notices to grannies, but I think most people where still of the "it doesn't affect me" mindset. Corrupt politicians depend on voters not caring (for the most part). Once most of them do, they either do what the voters say, or get tossed out (big business be damned)

  10. James 51 Silver badge

    If the fans take a video of something that happens in front of them and uploads it, they are violating copyright? I know there are big money contracts signed for broadcasting matches but this does sound more like breach of contract that copright violation (am assuming there is something in the ticket small print).

    At least now we know the reasaon why Man U banned tablets.

    1. Michael Habel Silver badge

      At least now we know the reasaon why Man U banned tablets.

      Cause Phones are easier to control then a 7" or 10" Fondleslab? Someone should probably tell them that those have some decent Cameras too... BTW: Whats the story on Google Glass? Will the FA employ Drones to spot all those malcontented Glassholes?

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        "Will the FA employ Drones to spot all those malcontented Glassholes?"

        Forget them. They already make "live shades" that woud've made Spider Jerusalem jealous. 4 GB+, can do video (many at 720p30), MicroSD, Bluetooth-capable, AND they look completely like ordinary glasses. Add a pair of prescription lenses and you have a perfect disguise that no one can force you to take off (since the prescription renders the glasses medically necessary).

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Man U banned tablets

      Man U banned tablets, because lots of people were saying their fans must be on drugs to go and see that crap. Then some people thought "tablet" referred to portable computers aka fondleslabs

  11. Ian 62

    Aren't there a number of exemptions to copyright

    And I give you two quick examples.

    1) News reporting

    Using material for the purpose of reporting current events is permitted provided that:

    The work is not a photograph.

    The source of the material is acknowledged.

    The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose.

    2) Criticism or review

    Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:

    The work has been made available to the public.

    The source of the material is acknowledged.

    The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification).

    The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review.

    So if you set up your twit/vine/facebook/youtube account as either:

    Red top style news outlet.

    Giving appropriate acknowledgements and only to show 'appropriate' amount.

    Football Pundit.

    Review or criticise the goal and again quote your sources.

    But then.. Since when has copyright been for the 'little guy'?

    1. Jagged

      Re: Aren't there a number of exemptions to copyright

      "The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review."

      So , if I post a clip of the goal and say, "that was shite/awesome" and add a reason, its all legal?

      1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

        Re: Aren't there a number of exemptions to copyright

        The work has been made available to the public.

        This is the sticking point - the official match footage is not by default made available to the public - it is paid for content.

        The earlier point about using your own camera at a football match, that is not copyright violation. However it is often against the T's & C's that you implicitly agreed to with your purchase and use of the ticket.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Aren't there a number of exemptions to copyright

          "The work has been made available to the public.

          This is the sticking point - the official match footage is not by default made available to the public - it is paid for content."

          the game has been made available to the public, not everyone has to buy a ticket and go to the event. I haven't purchased every book/film in the world, but they are still reviewed and excerpts are shown/read for me to see/read/hear.

      2. Cynic_999 Silver badge

        Re: Aren't there a number of exemptions to copyright

        It would certainly be a valid argument if you were defending an allegation that you were in breach of copyright, and no doubt Mr. Murdoch's lawyers would argue the opposite. The winner however is frequently the person who hired the most expensive lawyers rather than the person whose argument is correct.

  12. Robert E A Harvey

    Oh ye glods, not more

    What I fail to understand is why all these people who are so keen on football are not in a park somewhere kicking a ball.

    1. Thecowking

      Re: Oh ye glods, not more

      Yeah it's like those people who read fantasy novels instead of playing D&D or Pathfinder.

      I mean why watch someone else tell a story when you can do it yourself?

      Or possibly you can enjoy watching something as well as doing it.

      1. king of foo

        Re: Oh ye glods, not more

        PORN

        That is all

  13. Chris G Silver badge

    Sounds like

    A great way to alienate the fans, not that Murdoch ever gave a rat's arse about alienating anybody.

    A ball hitting the back of the net could arguably be the player's intellectual property as they had to think about how to achieve the goal but Intellectual and The Sun in the same sentence? Oxymoronic!

    1. Robert Baker
      Joke

      Re: Sounds like

      Are you sure about the "oxy"? :-)

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Premier League Football?

    A thing played by a bunch of overpaid pansies who can't keep on their feet to save their lives.

    Now, the version played with the oval ball.... that's more like it. Real men don't play Soccer.

    1. fishman

      Re: Premier League Football?

      Oval ball - I hope you don't mean 'Merican Football. Where you get a total of 25 seconds of "action" over a few minutes. followed by 5 minutes of terrible tasting American beer commercials.

      1. Red Bren
        Joke

        Re: Premier League Football?

        "5 minutes of terrible tasting American beer commercials."

        You can taste beer commercials? I want a telly like yours...

        1. ShadowedOne
          Joke

          Re: Premier League Football?

          It's just that American beer is *so* bad, even the commercials leave a bad taste in your mouth.

          1. James O'Shea

            Re: Premier League Football?

            Miller and Bud are NOT beer. They just aren't.

            There's a reason why Bud ads feature Clydesdales...

            1. Robert Baker
              Pint

              Re: Premier League Football?

              Isn't drinking American "beer" said to be like shagging in a boat? :-)

    2. mad_dr
      Headmaster

      Re: Premier League Football?

      An oval is flat. I think you mean a prolate spheroid.

  15. Stretch

    This is bollocks anyway

    As it has already been proven in court that pictures of premier league football are NOT copyrightable.

    http://www.out-law.com/articles/2012/march1/premier-league-considering-selling-broadcast-rights-on-pan-eu-basis-following-ecj-ruling/

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-25968200

    more, google it.

    Only the Logos are copyrightable. A camera phone recording will not show logos, so the pictures are not copyright.

    Premier League is very, very well aware of this. But they'd rather put out these lies and hope people believe them.

    1. nineworlds

      Re: This is bollocks anyway

      From your Out-Law link: "Whilst live sporting events themselves are not protected by copyright, broadcasts of them and film, sound recordings, graphics, music and other features included within a broadcast are."

      That seems to say that pictures and recordings of the game are copyrightable - "broadcasts of them and film, sound recordings ... are." A phone recording does have a copyright, but it belongs to the person who was using the phone at the time. They may, however, be in breach of a contract they entered into when buying their ticket, not to take recordings...

      In the case above, I read that as saying that the Premier League had licensed their stream to a foreign provider, who sold the decoder card back to the UK. Preventing this by contract would be a breach of EU free trade laws, so those companies abroad have the right to show the copyrighted film of the game anywhere in the EU. Because separate copyrights exist in the logos and anthem, the Premier League *can* stop those being shown. Seems a pretty unclear case all round, though.

      However, nothing I've seen says which the League will be looking for: footage captured from TV signals or that from illicit recordings made at the match.

      IANAL, etc...

    2. Just Enough

      Re: This is bollocks anyway

      No. You are talking bollocks. The game is not copyrightable, but recordings and broadcasts of them are. It says as much in the article you linked to.

      "Whilst live sporting events themselves are not protected by copyright, broadcasts of them and film, sound recordings, graphics, music and other features included within a broadcast are."

      This means that the football club cannot copyright their game, a fan in the crowd can record it legally, but the television company filming it can copyright their broadcast. You cannot take their recording of the game, and redistribute it, whether you take the logos off it or not.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: This is bollocks anyway

        "This means that the football club cannot copyright their game, a fan in the crowd can record it legally, but the television company filming it can copyright their broadcast. You cannot take their recording of the game, and redistribute it, whether you take the logos off it or not."

        But they CAN restrict the photography of the game. First off, the venue is usually at least partially-privately-owned, so a premises provision can apply (filming the interior of one's premises without permission is generally not allowed, IIRC). If you see a sign near a business's front door that reads "No cameras," this is the justification. Second, the game is restricted access (you PAID for the ticket), meaning there are terms and conditions to the permission to spectate encapsulated in the ticket.

  16. Someone Else Silver badge
    WTF?

    Say WHAT?!?

    [Dan Johnson] added: "I know it sounds as if we're killjoys but we have to protect our intellectual property."

    Waidaminnit! Soccer ("football", for you Continentals) goals are intellectual property? Shirley, you jest!

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: Say WHAT?!?

      When the only thing you can sell is footage of goals, everything looks like Intellectual Property.

    2. Tempest8008

      Re: Say WHAT?!?

      Thanks.

      And don't call me Shirley.

  17. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    Will nobody think of the NETS??

    illegal videos of balls hitting the back of nets

    HOLY SHIT! We must DO SOMETHING!!

    1. Daniel Johnson

      Re: Will nobody think of the NETS??

      I hope the City of London police crack down on this sort of thing because... Organized crime! Terrorism!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Will nobody think of the NETS??

        "I hope the City of London police crack down on this sort of thing because... "

        I hope they won't! They'll be after illegal videos of balls hitting chins (and foreheads) next!

  18. This Side Up
    Joke

    Intellectual property?

    Football?

    Guffaw, guffaw.

  19. IcyBee

    What happens if the footage was taken by a monkey?

    1. VinceH

      "What happens if the footage was taken by a monkey?"

      I don't know about a monkey, but if it was an ape, I'm absolutely positive the resulting legal wrangling would lead to the ape leading his people in a revolution. Meanwhile, a space craft of some kind will be launched, and something would happen to it [and its human crew] and they'd return to Earth some time in the distant future, only to discover that man had fallen, and apes now ruled the planet.

      All because of an argument over copyright.

      We're doomed!

      Doomed!

      1. Arachnoid
        Trollface

        How about

        An Ape wearing Google glasses [as they haven't been mentioned yet] who is going to stop it filming?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: How about

          "An Ape wearing Google glasses [as they haven't been mentioned yet] who is going to stop it filming?"

          Especially if it happens to be a book-carrying Orangutuan who says "Oook" ?

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It seems that anything can be made so easily illegal, its hard to keep up. Perhaps the law is wrong?

  21. tekgun

    This sounds like a job for the City of London Police!

    Now go... earn your backhanders.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Now go... earn your backhanders

      There is a faint possibility that some people at the Met may yet come to regret their backhanders from the Murdoch Press. [I know, it was a few bad apples, Murdoch is as pure as the driven Blair and has his kids baptised in the River Jordan while wearing white robes...] We would not want something similar to happen to the City of London police or people might start asking why these organisations are in charge of national policing, when some nasty people might think they shouldn't even be issuing parking tickets.

      Oh, I note South Yorkshire Police told journalists they were raiding the house of a celebrity well in advance. Perhaps it's catching.

  22. JimmyPage Silver badge

    Doesn't the new copyright law

    specifically exempt format shifting ? Also it doesn't define how much a "quote" of a work is.

    So would a fan uploading a 100% clip of an MP4 stream as (say) an AVI be liable ?

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Rupert Murdoch ate my balls

    "...something something, but they have to realise it's illegal.... blah blah... remember it's illegal...."

    Yeah, and guess what- that was your choice. You ultimately own the rights, and could easily have decided to permit limited use of the clips in this way. If you'd wanted to, that is.

  24. Tim Almond

    Dinosaurs

    Most of the media is actually grasping that say, someone doing a youtube song of them singing Frozen or fan art of The Avengers doesn't matter at all. You might want to shut down the people broadcasting the whole film, but that stuff doesn't hurt you and in fact probably helps you because it generates some interest.

    No-one buys a Sky sub just to see the goals. You can see them on MOTD a few hours later. It's to see the whole match live, to be part of the drama of events unfolding.

    And seriously, what's the odds of this actually working. You block them on vine? So, what's to stop someone sticking the video on a video sharing site in China? Oh, you're just going to prosecute a fan. Really, good luck with the backlash to that.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The more you tighten your grip......

    I love it when the likes of the premier league try to put increasingly tight controls on 'their property'. The harder they try, the more people will try to circumvent the controls, and in ever more imaginative ways. How about someone flies a drone camera into Anfield to film a game? Do the Premier League licence the Israeli 'Iron Dome' to protect their 'property'. They make more than enough money out of football and need to chill the fuck out.

  26. Paul

    calling the Men In Black to erase your recent memory

    If the technology from MIB existed to erase your memory, then they'd be erasing your memory of attending the footie match because you might inadvertently talk about the match, and commentary is likely covered under the rights they sold.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: calling the Men In Black to erase your recent memory

      Hate to tell you this but the tech does exist (in pill form).

      I suspect it might have use from fans and players alike.

  27. nijam

    Can I get that software and delete goals (or whole matches) from their websites (or streams, or broadcasts, or wherever else they put them)? Seems fair to me.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ummm.... Pretty sure photos/videos you take belong to you....

    Don't we have a sodding monkey to prove this? For example, I took an architectural photo at a local mall, and was politely told to stop doing this. The owners of the mall are absolutely in the rights to ask me to stop. However, they have no claim to ownership over the photo I've already taken. I believe the same would be true of a photo (or video) of a goal taken at a football game. They can tell you to stop; they can eject you, but they can't claim ownership on what you've created.

    Looks like a land grab to me.

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Ummm.... Pretty sure photos/videos you take belong to you....

      "I took an architectural photo at a local mall, and was politely told to stop doing this. The owners of the mall are absolutely in the rights to ask me to stop."

      Public space. They can ask, but they can't force you to.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The Manchester Arndale is private property

        Nothing like a nice bit of private ownership of a public space, and this is exactly what many indoor malls happen to be. The owners are quite within their rights to make up a no photography rule*.

        * Which they seem to have relaxed, recently, doubtless thanks to less than stellar publicity.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The Manchester Arndale is private property

          I had this happen when I saw some really interesting roof trusses in a new building and wanted to take a picture (child who is a structural engineer, I'm not quite that sad.) The security guard told me to stop. I moved one step sideways, pointed out that I was now on public property, i.e. the pavement, and took my photos unmolested.

          It's not their fault, it's their management. Perhaps I was a terrorist looking for the best place to put the Semtex. But as I had just been wandering inside the building taking pictures for my report on something IT-related, it was a bit too late.

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This Safe, Safe World of Ours

    And so we have a culture where big business can take whatever they want from you, whether it's a photo of you out and about or a photo you put onto your Fartbook, Fluckr or even your own website, they can take it and use it to advertise their wares because it's for the good of the community of internetizens to be able to take what's yours and make it theirs. Good for them.

    But if you've paid upward of £40 to see a match and want to record what your eyes are seeing, (or, as the big businesses see it, stealing from them), then that is illegal. You are naughty, very naughty, and you should be punished for even thinking that you can take something that belongs to someone else and use it for your own entertainment. What were you thinking!?

    You're not rich enough to steal!

    How dare you!?

  30. Trollslayer Silver badge
    Unhappy

    I must be getting old

    I can remember when football was about sport

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I must be getting old

      The love of money corrupts everything.

  31. Dabooka Silver badge
    Stop

    It's not about fan captured footage....

    from a camera phone etc, it's fans copying the TV footage for their gifs and vines. Most of the comments on here are moot as a consequence.

    What kind of footage do you think you'd get from a smart phone when sat in row AA on the half way line?

    1. Dan Paul

      Re: It's not about fan captured footage....

      If it was a Lumia it might not be bad......

  32. Oh Homer
    Childcatcher

    "ultimately it is against the law"

    Bollocks. Some 10 second silent GIF showing a goal is not a copyright infringement, it's fair use for the purpose of social commentary.

    These copyright terrorists need to be taken outside and shot.

    1. Red Bren
      Pirate

      Re: "ultimately it is against the law"

      "These copyright terrorists need to be taken outside and shot."

      And the footage uploaded to vine?

  33. martin 62

    next it will be.....

    you can pay to get into the grounds but can not actually watch the match as that would be classed as viewing copyrighted content.....

  34. Keith 21

    Interesting to compare this with what REAL artists are doing...

    Queen are currently on tour with Adam Lambert as their singer.

    Fans are recording and posting videos, ranging from chart clips, to full song, to the entire concert.

    Others then started collecting these videos and editing them into good quality multi-camera videos of entire concerts and posting them freely on YouTube etc.

    Queen's response? Brian May (lead guitarist and part time vocalist) posts links to them via his Twitter account, his Facebook account and his own website!

    At one point the record company stepped in and asked YouTube to remove them. May found out, and his response was to tell the record company to stop it.

    THERE lies the difference between genuine talent performing for the fans, and football which holds the fans in contempt and views them merely as a cash cow.

  35. Bladeforce

    Reminds me of a classic quote from a certain movie..

    ..name changed for copyright purposes (lol)

    "The more you tighten your grip, Murdoch, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

  36. David Gale

    Football is missing the point...

    Do these morons not get it? The grassroots of interest in football (and now F1 motorsport ) is being destroyed by the advent of expensive pay to watch TV. Yes, a handful of people are making a mint but ask any kids' football coach what's happening and they'll tell you that with Freeview's loss of English league football has gone the interest of a large percentage of kids who can no longer watch top level English football on television. It's ironic that the football industry is now spending yet more money on technology to ensure that even less people have access to the game. Wake up! You're killing the golden goose.

    1. MJI Silver badge

      Re: Football is missing the point...

      It has already happened with other sports.

      Look at Cricket.

  37. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The thin end of the wedge

    Could this restriction could not lead to other restrictions? 3D diagrams of ball trajectory, foot and body positioning. Sounds a bit pedantic, but I can see a day coming when the owners of the content subsequently wanted to produce a virtual reconstruction of events leading up to a goal which could be used for various purposes, some of which could be of a highly technical nature.

  38. Rob 44

    Big deal.

    Football is a massive snooze fest for me to be honest. So the less of it polluting my twitter time line the better as far as I'm concerned.

  39. Domino

    Did they ask their lawyers?

    What if howtoscoregoals.com gets registered to take advantage of the eucational copyright exceptions?

    Are "dive" videos covered by the caracature exception?

    If a site with robots.txt (disallow: /footiegifs) and a honeypot gif gets a takedown notice, will we be liable under the computer misuse act?

    1. Domino

      Re: Did they ask their lawyers?

      eucational ??!!!

      I guess my subconcious had something to say about the educational content of my post :/

  40. Alfred 2
    Unhappy

    I hate to say it

    but the only way to stop this madness if for the fans to take action.

    I would suggest choosing one day and boycotting the matches on that day. Let the TV show empty stadiums, that would send a message. Sadly it won't happen.

  41. david 63

    I might be mistaken...

    And I haven't got time to check right now, but in copyright law isn't there provision for 'Quoting'

  42. Salts

    Excuse me but I am confused(nothing new)

    Are they saying that if I go to a match and capture a goal on my smartphone they own the copyright?

    Or are they saying if I capture something they transmit and retransmit it I break copyright?

    If the first I may break terms and conditions, but good luck to them trying to pin it down to me and even more trying to get a judgement that makes them not look like the tossers they are.

    If it's the second, well ok can see their point, but still good luck to them.

    The winners of this are the people with the contract to provide the technology to 'try' to stop it.

  43. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    Indeed

    "

    Do not piss off fans

    Or they will piss off leaving you with no money.

    "

    Indeed. Major League Baseball has been apparently trying to figure out why viewership has dropped off... it was already dropping like a rock 15 years ago when I was in college. Why did it drop off? They make it so quite a few games are only available with expensive sports packages. With an antenna you certainly will not get enough games to bother watching it. And no online coverage without paying like $150 for a MLB online package (not even streaming radio.) Result? A lot of younger people don't have a TV (they watch videos on the computer if at all), and even fewer spend big money on some cable or dish package; and they aren't about to pay $150 to watch. So they don't.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Indeed

      Next, they'll solve this problem by engaging troll lawyers who will send everybody a demand for $10 000 for illegally downloading their content, with the option of taking out a subscription for life instead.

      The English speaking world - where we don't have to worry about the Mafia, because here they're legitimate businessmen and that makes it all right.

  44. Lodgie

    I have never posted a video clip of a match on Twitter. I now intend to do so as often as I can.

  45. Robert Baker
    Thumb Up

    @Lodgie

    If you do, just make sure you copy it right. :-)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019